3 ms·

AGI, since it lacks a technical/mathematical definition, can be anything. It’s mere philosophy at this point, actually even vaguer than most philosophical probl

• posterboy 5y ago
  Although I share your sentiment in general, I would presume that @tluyben's take is fairly true to the broader philosophical view. The ritique of this view being at least as weak as the views on intelligence per se is a drop in the ocean really. Implying, there is a wealth of thought devoted to inteligence! That fact is actually proving the conjecture in a nicely constructive way by itself, that we are thoughtful indeed, if only you believe this axiomatically like. The quintessential theorem was distiled by Descartes, of course, wherefore he is remembered.
• tluyben2 5y ago
  I meant it to mean, indeed in a vague way, what we call human intelligence or beyond; the parent says to make a neural network that can predict what someone will think/feel in the future, which seems the same or at least indistinguishable from the subject’s human intelligence as it will result in the same outputs. So to create the network implied by the parent, we would have to a) be able to make networks of that (unknown) complexity and b) ‘copy’ , or rather make it learn from the outputs, the current ‘state’ of the subject’s brain in it. That is incredibly far removed from anything cutting edge we know how to do. If it is at all possible. So I was just surprised by their use of language as it seems to imply parent thought we would be closer to or there already with our developments of AI tech.